by Adam Hartung | Aug 29, 2014 | Current Affairs, In the Whirlpool, Leadership
It’s Labor Day, and a time when we naturally think about our jobs.
When it comes to jobs creation, no role is more critical than the CEO. No company will enter into a growth phase, selling more product and expanding employment, unless the CEO agrees. Likewise, no company will shrink, incurring job losses due to layoffs and mass firings, unless the CEO agrees. Both decisions lay at the foot of the CEO, and it is his/her skill that determines whether a company adds jobs, or deletes them.
Over 2 years ago (5 May, 2012) I published “The 5 CEOs Who Should Be Fired.” Not surprisingly, since then employment at all 5 of these companies has lagged economic growth, and in all but one case employment has shrunk. Yet, 3 of these CEOs remain in their jobs – despite lackluster (and in some cases dismal) performance. And all 5 companies are facing significant struggles, if not imminent failure.
#5 – John Chambers at Cisco
In 2012 it was clear that the market shift to public networks and cloud computing was forever changing the use of network equipment which had made Cisco a modern growth story under long-term CEO Chambers. Yet, since that time there has been no clear improvement in Cisco’s fortunes. Despite 2 controversial reorganizations, and 3 rounds of layoffs, Cisco is no better positioned today to grow than it was before.
Increasingly, CEO Chambers’ actions reorganizations and layoffs look like so many machinations to preserve the company’s legacy rather than a clear vision of where the company will grow next. Employee morale has declined, sales growth has lagged and although the stock has rebounded from 2012 lows, it is still at least 10% short of 2010 highs – even as the S&P hits record highs. While his tenure began with a tremendous growth story, today Cisco is at the doorstep of losing relevancy as excitement turns to cloud service providers like Amazon. And the decline in jobs at Cisco is just one sign of the need for new leadership.
#4 Jeff Immelt at General Electric
When CEO Immelt took over for Jack Welch he had some tough shoes to fill. Jack Welch’s tenure marked an explosion in value creation for the last remaining original Dow Jones Industrials component company. Revenues had grown every year, usually in double digits; profits soared, employment grew tremendously and both suppliers and investors gained as the company grew.
But that all stalled under Immelt. GE has failed to develop even one large new market, or position itself as the kind of leading company it was under Welch. Revenues exceeded $150B in 2009 and 2010, yet have declined since. In 2013 revenues dropped to $142B from $145B in 2012. To maintain revenues the company has been forced to continue selling businesses and downsizing employees every year. Total employment in 2014 is now less than in 2012.
Yet, Mr. Immelt continues to keep his job, even though the stock has been a laggard. From the near $60 it peaked at his arrival, the stock faltered. It regained to $40 in 2007, only to plunge to under $10 as the CEO’s over-reliance on financial services nearly bankrupted the once great manufacturing company in the banking crash of 2009. As the company ponders selling its long-standing trademark appliance business, the stock is still less than half its 2007 value, and under 1/3 its all time high. Where are the jobs? Not GE.
#3 Mike Duke at Wal-Mart
Mr. Duke has left Wal-Mart, but not in great shape. Since 2012 the company has been rocked by scandals, as it came to light the company was most likely bribing government officials in Mexico. Meanwhile, it has failed to defend its work practices at the National Labor Relations Board, and remains embattled regarding alleged discrimination of female employees. The company’s employment practices are regularly the target of unions and those supporting a higher minimum wage.
The company has had 6 consecutive quarters of declining traffic, as sales per store continue to lag – demonstrating leadership’s inability to excite people to shop in their stores as growth shifts to dollar stores. The stock was $70 in 2012, and is now only $75.60, even though the S&P 500 is up about 50%. So far smaller format city stores have not generated much attention, and the company remains far behind leader Amazon in on-line sales. WalMart increasingly looks like a giant trapped in its historical house, which is rapidly delapidating.
One big question to ask is who wants to work for WalMart? In 2013 the company threatened to close all its D.C. stores if the city council put through a higher minimum wage. Yet, since then major cities (San Francisco, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, etc.) have either passed, or in the process of passing, local legislation increasing the minimum wage to anywhere from $12.50-$15.00/hour. But there seems no response from WalMart on how it will create profits as its costs rise.
#2 Ed Lampert at Sears
Nine straight quarterly losses. That about says it all for struggling Sears. Since the 5/2012 column the CEO has shuttered several stores, and sales continue dropping at those that remain open. Industry pundits now call Sears irrelevant, and the question is looming whether it will follow Radio Shack into oblivion soon.
CEO Lampert has singlehandedly destroyed the Sears brand, as well as that of its namesake products such as Kenmore and Diehard. He has laid off thousands of employees as he consolidated stores, yet he has been unable to capture any value from the unused real estate. Meanwhile, the leadership team has been the quintessential example of “a revolving door at headquarters.” From about $50/share 5/2012 (well off the peak of $190 in 2007,) the stock has dropped to the mid-$30s which is about where it was in its first year of Lampert leadership (2004.)
Without a doubt, Mr. Lampert has overtaken the reigns as the worst CEO of a large, publicly traded corporation in America (now that Steve Ballmer has resigned – see next item.)
#1 Steve Ballmer at Microsoft
In 2013 Steve Ballmer resigned as CEO of Microsoft. After being replaced, within a year he resigned as a Board member. Both events triggered analyst enthusiasm, and the stock rose.
However, Mr. Ballmer left Microsoft in far worse condition after his decade of leadership. Microsoft missed the market shift to mobile, over-investing in Windows 8 to shore up PC sales and buying Nokia at a premium to try and catch the market. Unfortunately Windows 8 has not been a success, especially in mobile where it has less than 5% share. Surface tablets were written down, and now console sales are declining as gamers go mobile.
As a result the new CEO has been forced to make layoffs in all divisions – most substantially in the mobile handset (formerly Nokia) business – since I positioned Mr. Ballmer as America’s worst CEO in 2012. Job growth appears highly unlikely at Microsoft.
“CEOs – From Makers to Takers”
Forbes colleague Steve Denning has written an excellent column on the transformation of CEOs from those who make businesses, to those who take from businesses. Far too many CEOs focus on personal net worth building, making enormous compensation regardless of company performance. Money is spent on inflated pay, stock buybacks and managing short-term earnings to maximize bonuses. Too often immediate cost savings, such as from outsourcing, drive bad long-term decisions.
CEOs are the ones who determine how our collective national resources are invested. The private economy, which they control, is vastly larger than any spending by the government. Harvard professor William Lazonick details how between 2003 and 2012 CEOs gave back 54% of all earnings in share buybacks (to drive up stock prices short term) and handed out another 37% in dividends. Investors may have gained, but it’s hard to create jobs (and for a nation to prosper) when only 9% of all earnings for a decade go into building new businesses!
There are great CEOs out there. Steve Jobs and his replacement Tim Cook increased revenues and employment dramatically at Apple. Jeff Bezos made Amazon into an enviable growth machine, producing revenues and jobs. These leaders are focused on doing what it takes to grow their companies, and as a result the jobs in America.
It’s just too bad the 5 fellows profiled above have done more to destroy value than create it.
by Adam Hartung | May 12, 2012 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Web/Tech
This has been quite the week for CEO mistakes. First was all the hubbub about Scott Thompson, CEO of Yahoo, inflating his resume to include a computer science degree he did not actually receive. According to Mr. Thompson someone at a recruiting firm added that degree claim in 2005, he didn't know it and he's never read his bio since. A simple oversight, if you can believe he hasn't once read his bio in 7 years, and he didn't think it was ever important to correct someone who introduced him or mentioned it. OOPS – the easy answer for someone making several million dollars per year, and trying to guide a very troubled company from the brink of failure. Hopefully he is more persistent about checking company facts.
But luckily for him, his errors were trumped on Thursday when Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P.MorganChase notified the world that the bank's hedging operation messed up and lost $2B!! OOPS! According to Mr. Dimon this is really no big deal. Which reminded me of the apocryphal Senator Everett Dirksen statement "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon it all adds up to real money!"
Interesting "little" mistake from a guy who paid himself some $50M a few years ago, and benefitted greatly from the government TARP program. He said this would be "fodder for pundits," as if we all should simply overlook losing $2B? He also said this was "unfortunate timing." As if there's a good time to lose $2B?
But neither of these problems will likely result in the CEOs losing their jobs. As obviously damaging as both mistakes are, which would naturally have caused us mere employees to instantly lose our jobs – and potentially be prosecuted – CEOs are a rare breed who are allowed wide lattitude in their behavior. These are "one off" events that gain a lot of attention, but the media will have forgotten within a few days, and everyone else within a few months.
By comparison, there are at least 5 CEOs that make these 2 mistakes appear pretty small. For these 5, frequently honored for their position, control of resources and personal wealth, they are doing horrific damage to their companies, hurting investors, employees, suppliers and the communities that rely on their organizations. They should have been fired long before this week.
#5 – John Chambers, Cisco Systems. Mr. Chambers is the longest serving CEO on this list, having led Cisco since 1995 and championed much of its rapid growth as corporations around the world began installing networks. Cisco's stock reached $70/share in 2001. But since then a combination of recessions that cut corporate IT budgets and a market shift to cloud computing has left Cisco scrambling for a strategy, and growth.
Mr. Chambers appears to have been great at operating Cisco as long as he was in a growth market. But since customers turned to cloud computing and greater use of mobile telephony networks Cisco has been unable to innovate, launch and grow new markets for cloud storage, services or applications. Mr. Chambers has reorganized the company 3 times – but it has been much like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Lots of confusion, but no improvement in results.
Between 2001 and 2007 the stock lost half its value, falling to $35. Continuing its slide, since 2007 the stock has halved again, now trading around $17. And there is no sign of new life for Cisco – as each earnings call reinforces a company lacking a strategy in a shifting market. If ever there was a need for replacing a stayed-in-the-job too long CEO it would be Cisco.
#4 – Jeffrey Immelt, General Electric (GE). GE has only had 9 CEOs in its 100+ year life. But this last one has been a doozy. After more than a decade of rapid growth in revenue, profits and valuation under the disruptive "neutron" Jack Welch, GE stock reached $60 in 2000. Which turns out to have been the peak, as GE's value has gone nowhere but down since Mr. Immelt took the top job.
GE was once known for entering and changing markets, unafraid to disrupt how the market performed with innovation in products, supply chain and operations. There was no market too distant, or too locked-in for GE to not find a way to change to its advantage – and profit. But what was the last market we saw GE develop? What has Mr. Immelt, in his decade at the top of GE, done to keep GE as one of the world's most innovative, high growth companies? He has steered the ship away from trouble, but it's only gone in circles as it's used up fuel.
From that high in 2001, GE fell to a low of $8 in 2009 as the financial crisis revealed that under Mr. Immelt GE had largely transitioned from a manufacturing and products company into a financial house. He had taken what was then the easy road to managing money, rather than managing a products and services company. Saved from bankruptcy by a lucrative Berkshire Hathaway, GE lived on. But it's stock is still only $19, down 2/3 from when Mr. Immelt took the CEO position.
"Stewardship" is insufficient leadership in 2012. Today markets shift rapidly, incur intensive global competition and require constant innovation. Mr. Immelt has no vision to propel GE's growth, and should have been gone by 2010, rather than allowed to muddle along with middling performance.
#3 – Mike Duke, WalMart. Mr. Duke has been CEO since 2009, but prior to that he was head of WalMart International. We now know Mr. Duke's business unit saw no problems with bribing foreign officials to grow its business. Just on the basis of knowing about illegal activity, not doing anything about it (and probably condoning and recommending more,) and then trying to change U.S. law to diminish the legal repurcussions, Mr. Duke should have long ago been fired.
It's clear that internally the company and its Board new Mr. Duke was willing to do anything to try and grow WalMart, even if unethical and potentially illegal. Recollections of Enron's Jeff Skilling, Worldcom's Bernie Ebbers and Hollinger's Conrdad Black should be in our heads. How far do we allow leaders to go before holding them accountable?
But worse, not even bribes will save WalMart as Mr. Duke follows a worn-out strategy unfit for competition in 2012. The entire retail market is shifting, with much lower cost on-line companies offering more selection at lower prices. And increasingly these companies are pioneering new technologies to accelerate on-line shopping with easy to use mobile devices, and new apps that make shopping, paying and tracking deliveries easier all the time. But WalMart has largely eschewed the on-line world as its CEO has doggedly sticks with WalMart doing more of the same. That pursuit has limited WalMart's growth, and margins, while the company files further behind competitively.
Unfortunately, WalMart peaked at about $70 in 2000, and has been flat ever since. Investors have gained nothing from this strategy, while employees often work for wages that leave them on the poverty line and without benefits. Scandals across all management layers are embarrassing. Communities find Walmart a mixed bag, initially lowering prices on some goods, but inevitably gutting the local retailers and leaving the community with no local market suppliers. WalMart needs an entirely new strategy to remain viable – and that will not come from Mr. Duke. He should have been gone long before the recent scandal, and surely now.
#2 Edward Lampert, Sears Holdings. OK, Mr. Lampert is the Chairman and not the CEO – but there is no doubt who calls the shots at Sears. And as Mr. Lampert has called the shots, nobody has gained.
Once the most critical force in retailing, since Mr. Lampert took over Sears has become wholly irrelevant. Hoping that Mr. Lampert could make hay out of the vast real estate holdings, and once glorious brands Craftsman, Kenmore and Diehard to turn around the struggling giant, the stock initially took off rising from $30 in 2004 to $170 in 2007 as Jim Cramer of "Mad Money" fame flogged the stock over and over on his rant-a-thon show. But when it was clear results were constantly worsening, as revenues and same-store-sales kept declining, the stock fell out of bed dropping into the $30s in 2009 and again in 2012.
Hope springs eternal in the micro-managing Mr. Lampert. Everyone knows of his personal fortune (#367 on Forbes list of billionaires.) But Mr. Lampert has destroyed Sears. The company may already be so far gone as to be unsavable. The stock price is based upon speculation of asset sales. Mr. Lampert had no idea, from the beginning, how to create value from Sears and he surely should have been gone many months ago as the hyped expectations demonstrably never happened.
#1 – Steve Ballmer, Microsoft. Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company. Not only has he singlehandedly steered Microsoft out of some of the fastest growing and most lucrative tech markets (mobile music, handsets and tablets) but in the process he has sacrificed the growth and profits of not only his company but "ecosystem" companies such as Dell, Hewlett Packard and even Nokia. The reach of his bad leadership has extended far beyond Microsoft when it comes to destroying shareholder value – and jobs.
Microsoft peaked at $60/share in 2000, just as Mr. Ballmer took the reigns. By 2002 it had fallen into the $20s, and has only rarely made it back to its current low $30s value. And no wonder, since execution of new rollouts were constantly delayed, and ended up with products so lacking in any enhanced value that they left customers scrambling to find ways to avoid upgrades. By Mr. Ballmer's own admission Vista had over 200 man-years too much cost, and its launch still, years late, has users avoiding upgrades. Microsoft 7 and Office 2012 did nothing to excite tech users, in corporations or at home, as Apple took the leadership position in personal technology.
So today Microsoft, after dumping Zune, dumping its tablet, dumping Windows CE and other mobile products, is still the same company Mr. Ballmer took control over a decade ago. Microsoft is PC company, nothing more, as demand for PCs shifts to mobile. Years late to market, he has bet the company on Windows 8 – as well as the future of Dell, HP, Nokia and others. An insane bet for any CEO – and one that would have been avoided entirely had the Microsoft Board replaced Mr. Ballmer years ago with a CEO that understands the fast pace of technology shifts and would have kept Microsoft current with market trends.
Although he's #19 on Forbes list of billionaires, Mr. Ballmer should not be allowed to take such incredible risks with investor money and employee jobs. Best he be retired to enjoy his fortune rather than deprive investors and employees of building theirs.
There were a lot of notable CEO changes already in 2012. Research in Motion, Best Buy and American Airlines are just three examples. But the 5 CEOs in this column are well on the way to leading their companies into the kind of problems those 3 have already discovered. Hopefully the Boards will start to pay closer attention, and take action before things worsen.
by Adam Hartung | Jul 20, 2011 | Current Affairs, In the Rapids, In the Whirlpool, Leadership, Web/Tech
“Buy Low, Sell High” was an industrial era investor expression. Before we shifted into an information economy, investors were admonished to invest along with economic cycles, buying during recessions, selling during booms.
In today’s information economy it’s not nearly so simple. While growth occurs, companies falter and disappear (Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics, for example.) Meanwhile, during bad economic periods there are flourishing growth companies.
Company performance today has much more to do with whether the company’s products and services are aligned with trends, and market shifts created by trends, than the overall economy. When revenues first show signs fo faltering, often the company fails completely, unable to react to market shifts. Competitors quickly steal customers, revenue and precious cash flow. Investors frequently have little warning, or time, before company value slides into the oblivion, leaving them with negative returns.
So now it’s more important to look at trends in where product and service markets are headed than overall economic conditions. The economy won’t save a company that’s against the trend – or hurt a company that’s delivering the market trend.
Yahoo caught the early trend toward internet usage. In the early years people didn’t quite know what to do on the internet, so content providers, aggregators, and ability to search were valuable. People like Yahoo because it gave them what they wanted, and the company flourished as it became the home page for over 80% of internet users. Advertisers loved the user base, so they bought ads.
Then the market shifted. Users gained more experience, and didn’t need the aggregation function Yahoo provided. Increasingly they wanted to find answers themselves, making the quality of search more important than content. A white page with a simple box (Google) that did great searching across the entire web overtook Yahoo’s content. And, as time progressed people started using the internet as a primary location for socially connecting with friends and colleagues, making the content aggregation even less valuable. Time spent on Yahoo as a percent of time on-line began dropping:
Source: Business Insider
But although this trend began in 2009, and was clear in 2010, Yahoo’s CEO kept pushing the same business model. She missed the trend.
The market kept right on shifting, and by 2011, Yahoo is in a very bad competitive position:
Source: Business Insider
So, nobody should be surprised that revenue would fall – correct? It’s not that the folks at Yahoo are wasteful, or not working hard. They simply are becoming out of step with the market trend. The result one would expect is worsening results in the old, “core” business – and that’s exactly what is happening:
Source: Business Insider
Meanwhile, where the eyeballs go is where the display ad revenues go as well. And with the trends, that means we would expect display ad revenu growth to move away from Yahoo – as it has done:
Source: Business Insider
So yesterday when Yahoo announced sales and earnings, it was a disappointment. What increase Yahoo had in fast growing display ads (5%) was insufficient to cover the decline in search ads (down 15%). Clearly, Yahoo missed the market shift. But, the CEO did not admit that the business model was ineffective (as results indicate.) Rather, she said the company needed more salespeople!
This proclivity to look inward, as if working harder, faster and better would “fix” Yahoo, defies the reality that the company is no longer competitive given where the market is headed. Ms. Bartz can’t succeed by trying to defend and extend the traditional Yahoo business model. Yahoo doesn’t need more salespeople, it needs an entirely different business!
Source: Business Insider
Alternatively, Apple exemplifies the other side of this coin. I have been an unabashed bull on Apple for months. Why? Because it does create solutions tightly linked to market trends. People, as consumers or in business, demand more mobility. And Apple’s products deliver that mobility more seamlessly and effectively than any other solution provider.
Apple could well have kept itself focused on Mac sales. Had it done so, it would likely be out of business today. Instead, Apple focused the bulk of its development on delivering products that fulfilled trends. The result has been expansion into new markets, which have delivered massive revenue gains.
Source: Business Insider
Last quarter Apple sold more iPhones and even more iPad tablets (9.25million units, $6.1B) than it sold Macs (~4 million units, $5.1B.) The old business has been replaced (cannibalized) by new, growing businesses that support the market trend. iPads are now 11% of the PC business overall, and growing fast as they obsolete PCs. Combined, iPads and Macs sold 13.25 million “computing devices” which would make it second in the world, behind only HP (15.3million PCs.) Bigger than Dell, for example, that has stuck to its “core” PC business.
Because Apple is all about delivering on trends, there’s really no reason to think revenues, and profits, won’t continue growing. The shift to mobility has just taken hold, and there are legions of people still without an apps-powerful smartphone (lots of Blackberry customers out there to shift.) The shift to tablets has just started. As these trends continue, Apple is continuing to develop new solutions that keep it ahead of competitors.
Where Yahoo’s CEO wants to add more salespeople, in hopes she can push outdated products, Mr. Jobs said in the earnings call yesterday “Right now we’re very focused and excited about bringing iOS5 and iCloud to our users this fall.” Yahoo is trying to do more of what it always did, as the market moves away. While Apple keeps its collective management eyes on the future – and where the market is headed – to constantly bring new solutions that deliver on the trends.
Sell Yahoo, if you haven’t already. And buy Apple. It’s all about investing with the trends.
Note: update on “Is Cisco a Value Stock? Skip It.” In the month since publishing that blog (6/23/11) Cisco has demonstrated that it is running headlong from the rapids of growth into the swamp of stagnation. Not only has it been killing off new products, but as it announced weak results the CEO has taken to a massive cutback. 11,500 employees are being laid off, or sent off to work for other companies as facilities are being sold to a Chinese company.
Worse, the CEO is now stooping to financial machinations in order to make the future look better. According to HuffingtonPost.com Cisco is taking a massive $1.3B charge. This allows Cisco to write off various costs that are old, current and even future to the current P&L. This will inflate future earnings, regardless of actual performance, while deflating current results. The net impact is P&L manipulation designed to make the company – quarter over quarter or year over year – look better than it is actually performing. Transparency is being intentionally muddled, to hide the company’s inability to provide solutions delivering on market trends.
Cisco shows all the signs of a company in a growth stall. Unable to shift with market trends, it is now shedding products, employees and assets in an effort to pad the P&L. It is “reorganizing” the company, rather than linking to market needs. Remember that fewer than 7% of companies that slip into a growth stall ever successfully maintain an ongoing 2% growth rate. Because they are focused on internal issues, and financial management – rather being clearly focused market trends.
Don’t just skip buying Cisco – if you are a shareholder, SELL!
And buy Apple.
by Adam Hartung | Jun 23, 2011 | Defend & Extend, In the Swamp, In the Whirlpool, Lifecycle, Lock-in, Web/Tech
Will Cisco be like Apple and go on to continued greatness? Or will it be more like Sun Microsystems? The answer isn’t clear yet, but the negatives are looking a lot clearer than the positives.
Cisco grew like the internet – because it supplied a lot of the internet’s infrastructure. Most of those wi-fi connections, wired and wireless, were supplied by the highly talented team at Cisco. And yet today, revenues for internet routers, switches and company services for networks account for 90% of Cisco’s sales — and its non-cash value (see chart at Trefis.com.) The problem is that those markets aren’t growing like they used to, and some are shrinking, as companies are increasingly switching to common carrier services to access cloud-based services supporting corporate needs. Just like cloud-based IT architectures put risk on Microsoft PC usage, they create similar risks for private network suppliers. Even corporations, the (in)famous “enterprise” customers for Cisco, are finding they can create security and reliability by giving up proprietary networks.
The market capitalization for Cisco has plunged some 40% the last year, and over 55% since peaking in late 2007. Those who support investing in Cisco think like the SeekingAlpha.com headline “3 Reasons Why Cisco is Oversold.” They cite a huge cash hoard (some 25% of market cap) and Cisco’s dominance in its historical “core” product markets. They hope that a revived economy will create an uptick in infrastructure spending by corporations and public entities. Or big buying in emerging countries.
Detractors become vitriolic about the company’s lost valuation, blaming Chairman/CEO John Chambers in articles like the SeekingAlpha.com “Cisco, Either Chambers Goes or I Go.” Their arguments are less about product miscues, and more intensely claiming the CEO misdirected funds into bad consumer market opportunities (Flip phone,) undeveloped new projects like virtual conferencing and an overly complicated organization structure.
What Cisco really needs is more new products in growth markets. Places where demand is growing, and the company can flourish like it did in the hey-day halcyon growth days of the internet. That was why CEO Chambers implemented a market-focused organization structure – complete with multi-layered committees – in an effort to seek out growth opportunities and fund them. Only, the organization lacked the permission and resource commitment to really allow developing most new markets and was overly complex in the resource allocation process. Instead of moving rapidly to identify and develop growth, the organization stalled in endless discussions. A couple of months ago the new org was gutted in a “refocusing” effort (typical reaction: BusinessInsider.com “Cisco’s Crazy Management Structure Wasn’t Working, So Chambers is Changing It“.)
But, if the previously more open organization couldn’t find permission to identify, fund and develop new markets, how will a “more focused” organization do so? Focus isn’t going to make companies (or households) buy more switches and routers. Or buy more network consulting services. The market has shifted, so as people move to smartphones and tablets, and cloud-based apps they access over common networks, how will an organization focused on old customers and products prove more successful? While the old organization may have been problematic, is abandoning a market-focused organization going to be an improvement? Sounds like a set-up for future layoffs.
In the drive for new products Cisco bought a very successful business in the Flip camera two years ago, which according to MediaPost.com had 26% market share. But, “Flip Camera: Dream Becomes a Nightmare” details the story of how Cisco was too late. The market quickly was shifting from digital cameras to smart phones – and sales stagnated. Cisco didn’t learn much about consumer products, or smart phones or how to launch new products outside its “core” from the experience, choosing to shut the business down and withdraw the product this spring (“Cisco Kills the Flip Camera“.) Ouch!
Clearly, Flip was a financially unsuccessful venture. But that could be forgiven if Cisco learned from the experience so it could move, like Apple, toward launching something really good (like Apple did with iPods.) But we don’t hear of any organizational learning from Flip, just failure.
And that’s too bad, because Cisco’s virtual conferencing could have great promise. Most of us now hate to travel (thanks TSA and all that great airline service!) And most corporate controllers hate to pay for business travel. The trends all point toward more and more virtual conferencing. For everything from one-on-one meetings to multi-site meetings to industry conferences for learning. This is a BIG trend, that will go well beyond a simple WebEx. Someone is going to make money with this – taking Skype to an entirely new level of performance. But given how badly Cisco managed Flip, and the new “refocusing” effort, it’s hard to see how that winner will be Cisco.
Cisco’s not yet a Sun Microsystems, so locked-in to old products it cannot do anything else and unable to grow at all. It’s not yet a Dell or Microsoft that’s missed the market shifts and is trying to spend too much money, too late on weak products against well funded, fast growing and profitable competitors.
But, the signs don’t look good. There’s no discussion about what Cisco sees itself doing new and differently in 5 years. We don’t see Cisco offering leading edge products like it did 15 years ago in its old “core” market. It’s historical market is not growing like it once did, and new competitors are changing the market entirely. The layered organization was an effort to attack old sacred cows, and limit the power of old status quo police, but now the new “focused” re-organization is reversing those efforts to find new markets for growth. “Focus” rarely goes hand-in-hand with successful innovation. We cannot find an obvious group of people focusing on new markets, with permission and resources to bring out the “next big thing” that could drive a doubling of revenues by 2017.
Unlike RIMM, the game isn’t over for CSCO. It’s markets still have some longevity. But the organization has been failing at doing the kind of new things, bringing out the new innovations, that would make it a good investment. Until management shows it knows how to find new markets and launch disruptive innovations, CSCO is not a place to invest. Don’t expect a fat dividend, and don’t expect revisiting old growth rates any time soon.
There are likely to be some good, and bad quarters. Cost management, and occasional big orders, combined with manipulating the timing of revenues and costs will allow for management to say “things are all better.” But there will be miscues and problems, and blaming of competitors and weak economic conditions in the bad quarters. Defend and extend management does not work when markets shift. Sideways is not moving forward. It’s more like treading water in the ocean – not a good strategy for rescue. Overall, I wouldn’t be optimistic.
by Adam Hartung | Dec 17, 2010 | Current Affairs, Defend & Extend, In the Rapids, In the Swamp, Leadership, Web/Tech
Summary:
- Many people think it is OK for large companies to grow slowly
- Many people admire caretaker CEOs
- In dynamic markets, low-growth companies fail
- It is harder to generate $1B of new revenue, than grow a $100B company by $10B
- Large companies have vastly more resources, but they squander them badly
- We allow large company CEOs too much room for mediocrity and failure
- Good CEOs never lose a growth agenda, and everyone wins!
“I may just be your little rent collector Mr. Potter, but that George Bailey is making quite a bit happen in that new development of his. If he keeps going it may just be time for this smart young man to go asking George Bailey for a job.” From “It’s a Wonderful Life“ an employee of the biggest employer in mythical Beford Falls talks about the growth of a smaller competitor.
My last post gathered a lot of reads, and a lot of feedback. Most of it centered on how GE should not be compared to Facebook, largely because of size differences, and therefore how it was ridiculous to compare Jeff Immelt with Mark Zuckerberg. Many readers felt that I overstated the good qualities of Mr. Zuckerberg, while not giving Mr. Immelt enough credit for his skills managing “lower growth businesses” in a “tough economy.” Many viewed Mr. Immelt’s task as incomparably more difficult than that of managing a high growth, smaller tech company from nothing to several billion revenue in a few years. One frequent claim was that it is enough to maintain revenue in a giant company, growth was less important.
Why do so many people give the CEOs of big companies a break? Given that they make huge salaries and bonuses, have fantastic perquesites (private jets, etc.), phenominal benefits and pensions, and receive remarkable payouts whether they succeed or fail I would think we’d have very high standards for these leaders – and be incensed when their performance is sub-par.
Facebook started with almost no resources (as did Twitter and Groupon). Most leaders of start-ups fail. It is remarkably difficult to marshal resources – both enough of them and productively – to grow a company at double digit rates, produce higher revenue, generate cash flow (or loans) and keep employees happy. Growing to a billion dollars revenue from nothing is inexplicably harder than adding $10B to a $100B company. Compared to Facebook, GE has massive resources. Mr. Immelt entered the millenium with huge cash flow, huge revenues, and an army of very smart employees. Mr. Zuckerberg had to come out of the blocks from a standing start and create ALL his company’s momentum, while comparatively Mr. Immelt took on his job riding a bullet out of a gun! GE had huge momentum, a low cost of capital, and enough resources to do anything it wanted.
Yet somehow we should think that we don’t have as high expectations from Mr. Immelt as we do Mr. Zuckerberg? That would seem, at the least, distorted.
In business school I read the story of how American steel manufacturers were eclipsed by the Japanese. Ending WWII America had almost all the steel capacity. Manufacturers raked in the profits. Japanese and German companies that were destroyed had to rebuild, which they progressively did with more efficient assets. By the 1960s American companies were no longer competitive. Were we to believe that having their industrial capacity destroyed somehow was a good thing for the foreign competitors? That if you want to improve your competitiveness (say in autos) you should drop a nuclear bomb on the facilities (some may like that idea – but not many who live in Detroit I dare say.) In reality the American leaders simply refused to invest in new technologies and growth markets, allowing competitors to end-run them. The American leaders were busy acting as caretakers, and bragging about their success, instead of paying attention to market shifts and keeping their companies successful!
Big companies, like GE, are highly advantaged. They not only have brand, and market position, but cash, assets, employees and vendors in position to help them be even more successful! A smart CEO uses those resources to take the company into growth markets where it can grow revenues, and profits, faster than the marketplace. For example Steve Jobs at Apple, and Eric Schmidt at Google have found new markets, revenues and cash flow beyond their original “core” markets. That’s what Mr. Welch did as predecessor to Mr. Immelt. He didn’t so much take advantage of a growth economy as help create it! Unfortunately, far too many large company CEOs squander their resources on low rate of return projects, trying to defend their existing business rather than push forward.
Most big companies over-invest in known markets, or technologies, that have low growth rates, rather than invest in growth markets, or technologies they don’t know as well. Think about how Motorola invented the smart phone technology, but kept investing in traditional cellular phones. Or Sears, the inventor of “at home shopping” with catalogues closed that division to chase real-estate based retail, allowing Amazon to take industry leadership and market growth. Circuit City ended up investing in its approach to retail until it went bankrupt in 2010 – even though it was a darling of “Good to Great.” Or Microsoft, which launched a tablet and a smart phone, under leader Ballmer re-focused on its “core” operating system and office automation markets letting Apple grab the growth markets with R&D investments 1/8th of Microsoft’s. These management decisions are not something we should accept as “natural.” Leaders of big companies have the ability to maintain, even accelerate, growth. Or not.
Why give leaders in big companies a break just because their historical markets have slower growth? Singer’s leadership realized women weren’t going to sew at home much longer, and converted the company into a defense contractor to maintain growth. Netflix converted from a physical product company (DVDs) into a streaming download company in order to remain vital and grow while Blockbuster filed bankruptcy. Apple transformed from a PC company into a multi-media company to create explosive growth generating enough cash to buy Dell outright – although who wants a distributor of yesterday’s technology (remember Circuit City.) Any company can move forward to be anything it wants to be. Excusing low growth due to industry, or economic, weakness merely gives the incumbent a pass. Good CEOs don’t sit in a foxhole waiting to see if they survive, blaming a tough battleground, they develop strategies to change the battle and win, taking on new ground while the competition is making excuses.
GM was the world’s largest auto company when it went broke. So how did size benefit GM? In the 1980s Roger Smith moved GM into aerospace by acquiring Hughes electronics, and IT services by purchasing EDS – two remarkable growth businesses. He “greenfielded” a new approach to auto manufucturing by opening the wildly successful Saturn division. For his foresight, he was widely chastised. But “caretaker” leadership sold off Hughes and EDS, then forced Saturn to “conform” to GM practices gutting the upstart division of its value. Where one leader recognized the need to advance the company, followers drove GM to bankruptcy by selling out of growth businesses to re-invest in “core” but highly unprofitable traditional auto manufacturing and sales. Meanwhile, as the giant failed, much smaller Kia, Tesla and Tata are reshaping the auto industry in ways most likely to make sure GM’s comeback is short-lived.
CEOs of big companies are paid a lot of money. A LOT of money. Much more than Mr. Zuckerberg at Facebook, or the leaders of Groupon and Netflix (for example). So shouldn’t we expect more from them? (Marketwatch.com “Top CEO Bonuses of 2010“) They control vast piles of cash and other resources, shouldn’t we expect them to be aggressively investing those resources in order to keep their companies growing, rather than blaming tax strategies for their unwillingness to invest? (Wall Street Journal “Obama Pushes CEOs on Job Creation“) It’s precisely because they are so large that we should have high expectations of big companies investing in growth – because they can afford to, and need to!
At the end of the day, everyone wins when CEOs push for growth. Investors obtain higher valuation (Apple is worth more than Microsoft, and almost more than 10x larger Exxon!,) employees receive more pay (see Google’s recent 10% across the board pay raise,) employees have more advancement opportunities as well as personal growth, suppliers have the opportunity to earn profits and bring forward new innovation – creating more jobs and their own growth – rather than constantly cutting price. Answering the Economist in “Why Do Firms Exist?” it is to deliver to people what they want. When companies do that, they grow. When they start looking inward, and try being caretakers of historical assets, products and markets then their value declines.
Can Mr. Zuckerberg run GE? Probably. I’d sure rather have him at the helm of GM, Chrysler, Kraft, Sara Lee, Motorola, AT&T or any of a host of other large companies that are going nowhere the caretaker CEOs currently making excuses for their lousy performance. Think what the world would be like if the aggressive leaders in those smaller companies were in such positions? Why, it might just be like having all of American business run the way Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos and John Chambers have led their big companies. I struggle to see how that would be a bad thing.
